Thursday, October 20, 2011

Burke's idea to continue free water is all wet

Friday's print column, below, is a revised and extended version of a blog posting yesterday

Ald. Ed Burke, 14th, made a splash, so to speak, Wednesday when he called for allowing religious schools and houses of worship to continue getting free water from the city.

In his budget proposal, Mayor Rahm Emanuel has called for an end to the unusual and generous law that allows "such property as is owned and used in the immediate conduct of carrying out of the purposes of any charitable, religious or educational institution" exemptions from paying their water bills and price breaks on their sewer charges.

Officials say that 6,113 not-for-profit institutions now receive such waivers, and about half are churches. The total cost to the city in 2010 was approximately $17 million.

But at the first day of council hearings on the budget, Burke (right), the powerful chair of the Finance Committee, said, "There are so many of these Catholic schools that are struggling now, that politically, it's kind of a hard vote to take, since they've come to expect these waivers for many years."

He also suggested that he and his colleagues "might think about continuing waivers for some small Catholic parish or Lutheran parish or synagogue that is hard pressed … We don't want to throw the baby out with the proverbial bath water, right?"

Wrong, actually.

Following the U.S. and Illinois constitutional guidelines for keeping church and state separate does require the sacrifice of a few metaphorical babies now and then. We can't (or aren't supposed to) divert public resources for sectarian purposes, no matter how wholesome.

Article 10, Section 3 of the state constitution could hardly be more clear on the point: No governmental entity "shall ever make any appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian purpose, or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church or sectarian denomination whatever."

Ald. Ray Suarez, 31st, got it exactly wrong Wednesday, when, amplifying on Burke's suggestion, he added that cutting a break to religious institutions is "only fair" because "they are doing the Lord's work."

Aldermen are free to have their opinions about what is and isn't "the Lord's work," of course. But they're emphatically not free to move taxpayers' money around accordingly, even though courts have tended to turn a blind eye to the practice as long as support is offered under generic umbrellas.

"Government is not supposed to offer benefits or subsidies to religious groups only," said a statement Thursday from Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "The choice facing Chicago officials is simple: They can shut off the subsidy spigot for all groups or continue it for all, religious and non-religious. A special free-water benefit for religion only isn't a constitutionally acceptable answer."

Burke appeared to back down when I challenged him Thursday morning on this point. "It wasn't my intent to say that only religious schools should be able to continue to enjoy the exemption," he said. "All private schools" should continue to get free water, he said. "I might not have been as clear as I should have been. (My proposal) was not intended to be a sop to religion."

Then he went on to offer a sop to religion: "All churches, synagogues and mosques should also continue to be exempt" from water charges, he said. Because many of them "operate food pantries or provide care over and above their religious function," he said. "They're not just a place for prayer. And someone ought to estimate someday how much the existence of these religiously affiliated schools saves the taxpayers."

A lot, no doubt. But the same is true for many of the secular not-for-profit agencies that will begin to pay for their water and full sewer charges if Emanuel has his way.

And if the City Council wants to start diluting the proposal by handing out exemptions, it ought to start with institutions that don't proselytize and don't mix so many babies with so much bath water.

If they give churches favored status over charitable groups, lawsuits will be sure to follow and all the potential savings will go swirling down the drain.

I'm curious how not holding taxpayers responsible for a church's water bill equates to "refusing to allow religious organizations to [provide charity]" when the people who attend the church can pay for it.

Again, since I know someone will miss the point: how is not covering a church's water bill with public funds "refusing" to allow it to provide charity.

I thought my point was quite obvious-churches provide charity to the general public, and fill in gaps left by city services. That's why the city partially recompensates for the public service the churches provide. Now do you know better?

And what if a church doesn't do that Thomas? Do they get taxed then? Simple fact is, no church is obligated to provide charity to the general public, so it's a poor metric to just hope that they do and give them the tax break up front. Rather, just like any other entity, they can deduct the costs of their charitable services from their tax bill, and if they provide enough services to eliminate that tax bill, then good for them.

In any event, I don't think this is a particularly good idea, which may surprise some of you who think I am some sort of reactionary who believes something along the lines that only MCN-approved Catholics should be constitutionally eligible for higher office.

Egad - your update is worse than the original. They're going to cover ALL private and charter schools? Even the for-profit ones? Aw hell, why don't they just cover all businesses. I'm sure individual homeowners won't mind covering the cost. After all, businesses will just pass the cost along to consumers anyway, right?

MCN - I'm pretty sure that religious institutions don't have to pay property taxes. I remember a kerfluffle a couple years back about a guy who turned his $600,000 home into a church and he wasn't paying property taxes on it because of that status.

I am a big believer in churches and the work they do. I am also in support of tax breaks given to churches and nonprofits. Churches enhance a neighborhood, with no stated goal (ostensibly) other than to make the lives of their fellow human beings better, regardless of their ability to pay for any services and, typically, without demanding payment. (Notice I said "ostensibly.")

However, anyone who uses city water should pay for what they use, whether they are for profit or not. It's a user-fee-based system and water is a limited resource. So, you drink, you flush, you pay. Period.

I should not be paying a religious institution's water bill any more than they should be paying my water bill.

If a church or temple or mosque or religious school doesn't have the membership to pay for its own utilities--that, let's face it, are used exclusively/overwhelmingly by its own members--then it should consider closing, downsizing its physical infrastructure, or consolidating with another congregation. This happens all the time and in fact happened to my congregation because its membership base gradually eroded. We didn't get a bailout. We had to make painful economic decisions but we bit the bullet and did it.

In a neighborhood near where I live, several churches have closed up and been converted to condominium/housing, which is actually a lot more practical and economically beneficial to the neighborhood now that taxes are being paid; professionals have moved in; etc. These properties are now part of the tax base rather than the opposite.

I've lived in my neighborhood for more than 10 years, am active locally professionally, socially and personally with the alderman, and local businesses. I'm unaware of anything any neighborhood church has done that can accurately be described as "serving everyone" in any tangible way. They serve themselves and their congregants. That's fantastic, as long as they don't expect me to bail them out.

Schools deserve the tax break, and should get it. Whether a private school, or any denomination- if it is an accredited school, they should not be charged any more for water than Chicago Public Schools are charged.

--Kip...my church regularly holds rummage sales where anyone can come and pay $7 a bag for clothes. Whatever fits in the bag is game. The clothes are donations from whomever. Church members sort and hang them for the sales. There is always a line to get access to the nicest stuff first. The people who generally come and buy are definitely not members of that church, but typically live on the poorer side of town. This is one of probably a dozen good Samaritan efforts that benefit mostly those who are non members.

I do think that Burke is wrong and no one should get an exemption, regardless of the work they do.

"Government is not supposed to offer benefits or subsidies to religious groups only," However, Burke wants to continue the current ordinance that allows "such property as is owned and used in the immediate conduct of carrying out of the purposes of any charitable, religious or educational institution" a pass on the water bill. So it NOT a benefit to religious groups only, it is a benefit to all private schools. Now I agree that the ordinance is discriminatory, because the city doesn't allow the water commisions that purchase water for distributions to the suburbs to make the same type of exemption, so I am paying a water bill (with a meter) that not only subsidizes city homeowners who use as much water as they want with no impact on the bill, I also am subsidizing the water provided to all schools in Chicago. So my water bill helps pay for CPS water while my property tax bill pays for the water used by my local school district. If Rahm wants to end practice, charge the CPS for water as well. I would bet that the breaks given to CPS is more than the breaks given to the private schools.

[[Schools deserve the tax break, and should get it. Whether a private school, or any denomination- if it is an accredited school, they should not be charged any more for water than Chicago Public Schools are charged. Posted by: Megan | Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 10:16 PM]]

While I agree that they should not get free water, the property tax break is more than enough, let's keep the Constitution out of the argument please.

The words 'separation of church and state' do not now and never have appeared in the Constitution.

The First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits laws and rules that would lead to establishment of a state religion or limit the free exercise of religion. A real estate tax exemption or free water or a tuition voucher that is available to all churches and religions would not violate the letter or spirit of the First Amendment.

ZORN REPLY -- I disagree, though the courts do not. Any law, any subsidy, that separates religious from non-religious institutions and rewards or gives special favor to religious institutions offends what I beleive to be the animating idea behind the First Amendment, which is that the government is to offer no support or sanction or opinion about religion or belief in God in any way that suggests a state imprimatur on any kind of faith or no faith at all.

Quit hiding behind the constitution people...there is a lot of stuff in there that is really just there, and has no practical meaning. Like the part that says Illinois has to have a balanced budget. Springfield picks and chooses which part of the constitution it chooses to obey every day.

Besides, the proposal to charge churches for water is dead on arrival anyway. The south side alderman will never go for it, and the city council doesn't need to get in a snit with one another over this stupid triviality. There are much bigger fish to fry. End of story.

@MOPerina:
So your church has rummage sales where people can buy cheap donated clothes.
You think that entitles them to free water & a tax exemption?
Guess what?
I too want a tax exemption for my house.
Why?
Be cause I've held garage sales where people can buy cheap clothes & other merchandise over the years!
Your sense of entitlement for your church is appalling. Get off the dole & pay for water & pay the taxes for the other city services you get: police, fire, parks & so much more.
That video of Elizabeth Warren doesn't hold true for just the rich, it also holds true for all the religious institutions that have sponged off the general public for the last century!

What part of "separation of church and state" don't these churches understand?

No exemptions for churches. Not on water, not on property taxes, nothing. Let them pay their own way. I'm tired of subsidizing churches through my property taxes and utility payments, and I'm especially tired of subsidizing the Jenkinses, Meekses and Braziers of this city, whose wealthy megachurches are virtual corporations.

If Emanuel is serious about fiscal responsibility, he should take them all on. A city with a balanced budget, where everybody pays something? Now that would be the "Lord's work".

Giving the break to all churches equally is not a problem. Giving it only to certain churches because they are of a certain religion, yes a problem.

But there certainly shouldn't be a problem if a church files for a waiver for hardship or inability to pay of course.

Regardless, I think its safe to say that chuches and non-profits in the city provide more than $17 million worth of service to the community, so from a budgetary, financial standpoint, this move is incorrect.

You're right on with this, Eric. Are you aware that the city also provides 'free' scavenger service (trash pick-up) to churches and faith-based not for profit groups, in violation of the state constitution. The mayor needs to put a stop to these illegal practices immediately!.

Its quite entertaining to watch people on the left all of the sudden become strict constructionists and complain about free-riding on tax dollars when an organization they don't like (churches) is the beneficiary.

--Deja vu. I pointed out several days ago on a related thread, it's equally amusing to watch some conservatives become palms-out socialists as long as the organization receiving taxpayer welfare is a church.

It's not as amusing when someone intentionally (but ineffectively) tries to reduce the argument as being based on "not liking" churches (or other religious organizations), when it is actually about expecting others to pay for utilities used by organizations that have members who can and should do it.

There's no need to bring the Constitution into it. This is indefensible public policy, and these discussions have shows that there are plenty on the right who understand that.

@Garry, I guess you didn't see my last sentence. I did NOT say that I agreed with the exemption from paying the water bill, I don't agree with it and I do agree that everyone should pay.

I was responding to Kip saying that all neighborhood churchs don't do anything for the community at large, only their own congregants. I do not believe that blank statement to be true and I gave a specific example to the contrary.Admittedly it's anecdotal, but there's no way it's a single example. That doesn't mean I think they are exempt from anything that others have to pay.

Nothing like jumping all over someone with reading the entire post. Get off your soap box for a bit and you'll see.

Kip, I wasn't reducing the argument at all, rather than saying the left "doesn't like" churches, perhaps I could've said that churches are an organization that left is less inclined to support Is that better?

I don't support this policy either, I agree that organizations should not be granted special favors because they are in good graces with elected officials, or because these politicans deem their stated purpose superior to the activites of other organizations. I was merely pointing out that the reasoning used in some of these posts, especially the post about churches merging or closing if they can't financially self-support, bears a striking resembelence to arguments used by conservatives in regards to failing government programs or redundant or ineffective government agencies. In those cases, such arguments are usually derided as heartless and cruel by the left.

So let me ask you - if this measure were repealed and churchs couldn't afford to pay for water and had to either close or cut back on programs, what would people who rely on the kindness of these churches do for food? Would you just let them starve, wither and die on the street?

What about the bigger issue of getting people to use less water? If you're a miniscule part of a huge system, cutting your wasted water (running toilets, etc.) by any amount will not net you any savings. Conversely, charging people for what they use will give them an incentive to cut down, and I'm sure will end up saving Chicago residents millions of dollars in less water consumed.

Eric, your column conveniently omits the fact that public schools will continue to get FREE water while the private ones on the south and west sides that can just barely keep the lights on but provide a valuable alternative to the failing public schools in these communities won't. C'mon Man! How about some intellectual honesty and full disclosure?

ZORN REPLY -- Irrelevant. Public facilities are maintained with public funds.

"So let me ask you - if this measure were repealed and churchs couldn't afford to pay for water and had to either close or cut back on programs, what would people who rely on the kindness of these churches do for food? Would you just let them starve, wither and die on the street?"

Mr. Barboni, as someone who contributes regularly to at least 15+ various local, national and international charities, including hunger and medical charities, I'm unmoved by that argument. The cost of this utility should borne by the church members if they wish the church to provide charity. If its congregation can't support it, yes, the church should close or consolidate with another. As I stated earlier, my congregation had to downsize its infrastructure due to economics. We had to make some hard choices but it simply isn't up the taxpayers to foot the bill for places of worship.

My apologies if I incorrectly judged your political alignment. I am however amazed that this is actually a debate.

BTW: Brian, if those of who oppose footing the water bill for your church are "unreasonable pagans," then your church is a welfare queen.

I'm not seriously offering that up as an argument, I was illustrating the type of argument the left so loves and demonstrating that it could apply here. I am similarly unmoved by that type of argument because its is designed to play on emotion and is a substitute for facts or logic.

Why are you amazed that this is a debate? Governments hand out special favors to every interest group these days. Why should churches be singled out as free-riders, unworthy of govt assistance? Especially if you agree its not a constitutional argument? I amazed that the need to cut government spending is a debate, particularly when considering that our state's unfunded pension liability is 1-3 times our annual budget and there is not enough income to seize from the "rich" to close that hole. Given that situation, the left still trots out the old tired arguments that portray changes in government spending as inversely proportional to death and rape (according to VP Biden).

I don't know you, and am not speaking about you specifically, but I think many of my friends and family members on the left would be singing a different tune if this were a government agency that performs a function they support, such as green or other left-leaning community organizations. Those deserve help, but churches should fend for themselves.

Now the city needs sends out its union thugs - hiding behind the nobility of the law- to shake down churches and non prophets to pay for a city government that that at the end of the day is really concerned about self preservation so a very select few people can collect compensation packages that never were affordable. Sorry, I mean 'essential' public services.

In very short order the city is going to be filled with seniors collecting their tax benefits, city workers collecting their benefits, businesses collecting their tax benefits , hospitals collecting their benefits, educational systems collecting their benefits, teachers refusing to work an extra hour and a bunch of illegals working to pay for it all!

Thank God all will be solved when those free loading churches and non-profits start paying their fair share!

So go ahead everyone wrap yourself in the noble cloth of church state issues ... the city is burning again and forcing churches to pay for the water is not going to save it!

@Thomas Ratigan:
Tell that to Harold Camping & his equally delusional followers.
The world wasn't destroyed today by the massive earthquakes he predicted. At least none of them quit their jobs, sold all their possessions this time, unlike last May the last time this crackpot predicted the end of the world!

Plus you don't seem to understand satire, which was the original intent of my comment. Greg made an interesting mistake with a homophone that cancelled out his criticism. I caught it & made fun of it. You read too much into it.

I will own the the slip -- so what! Tell me how non-prophets or profits has anything at all to do with the city shaking down churches and non-prophets for decades of being owned by special interest groups and labor unions.

The argument is certainly sound.

Your anti-religious feelings do nothing to develop sound public policy for this city. Bill them all - run them all out of town- and you still have a nearly billion dollar hole in the budget.

@Greg: The churches have gotten away with murder in regard to all the free stuff from the city, county & state.
They pay no taxes, not even sales taxes, but get numerous services, such as police, fire, paramedic, hospital & free water.
They have to pay for all private utilities, gas, electric & phone, so we the public have to make up for their fair share.
If they go out of business, so what?
The so-called "lord's work" doesn't do a damned thing for me or the city.
For example, that huge church on Devon, west of the Edens. It pays no taxes, but has never seen fit to put a sidewalk on the Devon side of their property. Parasitism at its worst. They demand free water & tax breaks, but refuse to give the public a sidewalk so they don't have to walk in the street or if they don't want to get hit, walk in the mud!

--@Radigan:
County Hospital has done much for you. Do you know, that's where the blood bank was invented?
Homeless shelters are there to keep them off the streets. Do you want them in the middle of the street, you might run them over in your Bentley. Oh, the horror!
But your worst is the fire department!
You do go into the city? What if the building you're in catches fire. Guess what?
They'll get you out & they won't ask you where you live beforehand & reject you because you're from a suburb!

Churches on the other hand benefit no one but their members. Because they pay no taxes or water bills, they are parasites on society!

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.